Distribution of various components of a software stack can, in some cases, provide (or support) fault tolerance (e.g., through replication), higher durability, and less expensive solutions (e.g., through the use of many smaller, less-expensive components rather than fewer large, expensive components). However, databases have historically been among the components of the software stack that are least amenable to distribution. For example, it can difficult to distribute databases while still ensuring the so-called ACID properties (e.g., Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability) that they are expected to provide.
While most existing relational databases are not distributed, some existing databases are “scaled out” (as opposed to being “scaled up” by merely employing a larger monolithic system) using one of two common models: a “shared nothing” model, and a “shared disk” model. In general, in a “shared nothing” model, received queries are decomposed into database shards (each of which includes a component of the query), these shards are sent to different compute nodes for query processing, and the results are collected and aggregated before they are returned. In general, in a “shared disk” model, every compute node in a cluster has access to the same underlying data. In systems that employ this model, great care must be taken to manage cache coherency. In both of these models, a large, monolithic database is replicated on multiple nodes (including all of the functionality of a stand-alone database instance), and “glue” logic is added to stitch them together. For example, in the “shared nothing” model, the glue logic may provide the functionality of a dispatcher that subdivides queries, sends them to multiple compute notes, and then combines the results. In a “shared disk” model, the glue logic may serve to fuse together the caches of multiple nodes (e.g., to manage coherency at the caching layer). These “shared nothing” and “shared disk” database systems can be costly to deploy, complex to maintain, and may over-serve many database use cases.
A third model is a read replica model that is used to scale out read processing. According to a typical read replica model, as changes are made to the structure of the database, a SQL record may be created in a logical replication log which may then be propagated to all the replicas. Each replica would then run these SQL statements locally on their own versions of the database. Since the logs are shipped asynchronously, the read replica operates at some lag from the primary database, and there is some loss of data if the read replica needs to be promoted to be a primary.
While embodiments are described herein by way of example for several embodiments and illustrative drawings, those skilled in the art will recognize that the embodiments are not limited to the embodiments or drawings described. It should be understood, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit embodiments to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope as defined by the appended claims. The headings used herein are for organizational purposes only and are not meant to be used to limit the scope of the description or the claims. As used throughout this application, the word “may” is used in a permissive sense (i.e., meaning having the potential to), rather than the mandatory sense (i.e., meaning must). The words “include,” “including,” and “includes” indicate open-ended relationships and therefore mean including, but not limited to. Similarly, the words “have,” “having,” and “has” also indicate open-ended relationships, and thus mean having, but not limited to. The terms “first,” “second,” “third,” and so forth as used herein are used as labels for nouns that they precede, and do not imply any type of ordering (e.g., spatial, temporal, logical, etc.) unless such an ordering is otherwise explicitly indicated.
Various components may be described as “configured to” perform a task or tasks. In such contexts, “configured to” is a broad recitation generally meaning “having structure that” performs the task or tasks during operation. As such, the component can be configured to perform the task even when the component is not currently performing that task (e.g., a computer system may be configured to perform operations even when the operations are not currently being performed). In some contexts, “configured to” may be a broad recitation of structure generally meaning “having circuitry that” performs the task or tasks during operation. As such, the component can be configured to perform the task even when the component is not currently on. In general, the circuitry that forms the structure corresponding to “configured to” may include hardware circuits.
Various components may be described as performing a task or tasks, for convenience in the description. Such descriptions should be interpreted as including the phrase “configured to.” Reciting a component that is configured to perform one or more tasks is expressly intended not to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six, interpretation for that component.
“Based On.” As used herein, this term is used to describe one or more factors that affect a determination. This term does not foreclose additional factors that may affect a determination. That is, a determination may be solely based on those factors or based, at least in part, on those factors. Consider the phrase “determine A based on B.” While B may be a factor that affects the determination of A, such a phrase does not foreclose the determination of A from also being based on C. In other instances, A may be determined based solely on B.
The scope of the present disclosure includes any feature or combination of features disclosed herein (either explicitly or implicitly), or any generalization thereof, whether or not it mitigates any or all of the problems addressed herein. Accordingly, new claims may be formulated during prosecution of this application (or an application claiming priority thereto) to any such combination of features. In particular, with reference to the appended claims, features from dependent claims may be combined with those of the independent claims and features from respective independent claims may be combined in any appropriate manner and not merely in the specific combinations enumerated in the appended claims.